Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

New - fast track review!

Dear Authors,

If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 23, Number 2, 2018

Assessment of the Monitor Unit Objective tool for VMAT in the Eclipse treatment planning system

Sara Jiménez-Puertas, David Sánchez-Artuñedo, Marcelino Hermida-López

Summary:

Aim

This work aims to achieve the highest possible monitor units (MU) reduction using the MU Objective tool included in the Eclipse treatment planning system, while preserving the plan quality.

Background

The treatment planning system Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) includes a control mechanism for the number of monitor units of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, named the MU Objective tool.

Material and methods

Forty prostate plans, 20 gynecological plans and 20 head and neck plans designed with VMAT were retrospectively studied. Each plan (base plan) was optimized without using the MU Objective tool, and it was re-optimized with different values of the Maximum MU (MaxMU) parameter of the MU Objective tool. MU differences were analyzed with a paired samples t-test and changes in plan quality were assessed with a set of parameters for OARs and PTVs.

Results

The average relative MU difference

considering all treatment sites, was the highest when MaxMU = 400 (−4.2%, p < 0.001). For prostate plans, the lowest was obtained (−3.7%, p < 0.001). For head and neck plans was −7.3% (p < 0.001) and for gynecological plans

was 7.0% (p = 0.002). Although similar MU reductions were observed for both sites, for some gynecological plans maximum differences were greater than 10%. All the assessed parameters for PTVs and OARs sparing showed average differences below 2%.

Conclusion

For the three studied clinical sites, establishing MaxMU = 400 led to the optimum MU reduction, maintaining the original dose distribution and dosimetric parameters practically unaltered.